Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning

kfc 04/24/2012

38 Comments

The Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. That's hardly surprising for an event that represents the ultimate birth of everything.

However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.

In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.

Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

So these modern cosmologies suggest that the observational evidence of an expanding universe is consistent with a cosmos with no beginning or end. That may be set to change.

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity--a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

Keep in mind these verses were written LONG before the invention of the telescope!

Also, the bible mentions a part of the heavens that are empty. Since the invention of the telescope, we have confirmed that it exists, and the location (to the north, relative from the earth, or looking from the earth’s view toward our north polar region).

Also, the bible mentions a part of the heavens that are empty. Since the invention of the telescope, we have confirmed that it exists, and the location (to the north, relative from the earth, or looking from the earths view toward our north polar region).

Then how do you explain Open cluster NGC 188? Or Galaxy NGC 3172 among other objects?

14
posted on 04/26/2012 3:49:02 PM PDT
by dragnet2
(Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)

I'll say it again... Logic is the most major tool which God has given us for understanding our world. If a science claim or theory cannot pass a simple test for basic logic, the claim of theory is junk science.

"Big Bang" is bad science and bad theology rolled into a package. Having the entire mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Likewise for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God to suddenly determine that it would be cool or necessary to create a universe at a particular point in time while the idea had never occurred to him previously is clearly unworkable and is not compatible with anybody's system of logic. It doesn't even matter whether this supposed creation was 6000 years ago as per Bishop Usher or 17B years ago as per the evolosers and big-bangers.

In real life, the RNA/DNA code which is the basis of meaningful life has to be the work of a single pair of hands; the physical universe logically has to be eternal like God; the creation stories we read in ancient literature have to refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not to the creation of the universe.

The Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s.

Got to love how they don't mention the Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre who actually came up with the theory, Hoyle's term 'big bang' was in fact said in derision because he thought the universe having a beginning sounded too religious.

I think you’re missing the fact that God created the universe, therefore the universe has a beginning. God is eternal. Matter is not.

The relevant point the research seems to point to is that all the popular theories that have been designed to evade the “universe-has-a-beginning” argument actually argue the opposite - the sort of expansion that is theorized by multiverse proponents, and undulating universe proponents, and sudden expansion proponents... each of them mathematically require the universe to have a beginning.

Likewise for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God to suddenly determine that it would be cool or necessary to create a universe at a particular point in time while the idea had never occurred to him previously is clearly unworkable and is not compatible with anybody's system of logic.

It is compatible with my logic. My God can can do what He wants when He wants to do it on His time schedule. The universe is not eternally old. It had a starting point. And time is relative.

Also, the bible mentions a part of the heavens that are empty. Since the invention of the telescope, we have confirmed that it exists, and the location (to the north, relative from the earth, or looking from the earths view toward our north polar region).

Psa 75:6 For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. Psa 75:7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

East, West South, and God...

30
posted on 04/26/2012 4:44:40 PM PDT
by Iscool
(You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)

Well, what UCANSEE2 said isn’t contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics. If the universe is a closed system, then it is going to tend towards entropy, which is simply the equilibrium state, or the point where the sine wave crosses zero. It’s perfectly logical that a sine wave can continue vibrating while at the same time tending towards zero. Just look at what happens when you throw a rock in the water: the waves spread out, the amplitude continually decreases, but they never stop being waves.

“Likewise for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient God to suddenly determine that it would be cool or necessary to create a universe at a particular point in time while the idea had never occurred to him previously is clearly unworkable and is not compatible with anybody’s system of logic.”

You were doing great up until this point. Yes, God has given us logic so that we can inspect His handiwork and glean understanding about the universe, ourselves, and perhaps something about Him as well. However, to imagine that the logic we are given to understand this universe is equipped to give us understanding of anything outside this universe is a non sequiter. If God created this universe, then he must not be bound by it, and must be outside of it. So, we have no evidence that our logic is equipped to judge whether any of God’s possible actions or motivations are plausible. We can make some guesses, and hope that we are correct, but we cannot use our logic to draw a conclusion such as yours with any degree of certainty.

IF the universe “bounced” and it did oscillate like a sine wave, the peaks would grow smaller and smaller, eventually resting in a flat, heat death universe. Nothing goes on and on without losing energy...except for that one perpetual motion machine that guy down in Florida wants to sell me.

As nearly as I’ve ever been able to tell by reading, God works entirely within the laws of mathematics, probability, and physics. If you want violations of mathematical and probabilistic laws and particularly if you need them in wholesale lots, you need to be talking to the evolutionites, they specialize in that sort of thing.

Also, the bible mentions a part of the heavens that are empty. Since the invention of the telescope, we have confirmed that it exists, and the location (to the north, relative from the earth, or looking from the earths view toward our north polar region).

Then how do you explain Open cluster NGC 188? Or Galaxy NGC 3172 among other objects?

Galaxy NGC 3172 makes Galaxy NGC 1586 look like a cap pistol.

The point of my post was not comparing the size of objects, but the posters claim the northern/polar region from earth, was, "Empty".

45
posted on 04/26/2012 6:40:38 PM PDT
by dragnet2
(Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)

I suspect the correct question is not “When did the universe begin?”, but “when did time-space begin?”

Time-space can be imagined as an ‘x’ and a ‘y’ axis on a graph. But you *must* have both a multiplicand and a multiplier to get a product. That is, if you have time, but zero space, the universe does not exist. Or if you have space, but zero time, the universe does not exist. Only when you have both does the universe come into being.

And as Einstein showed, when mass-energy is put into time-space, it distorts the product of time-space in a third, or ‘z’ axis, perpendicular to both ‘x’ and ‘y’.

So until this point, until time and space and mass-energy interact, there is no universe.

46
posted on 04/26/2012 7:15:08 PM PDT
by yefragetuwrabrumuy
("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)

“As nearly as Ive ever been able to tell by reading, God works entirely within the laws of mathematics, probability, and physics.”

Yes, exactly my point. As near as you’ve been able to tell, because the things of this universe, such as math, probability, and physics, are the only things which we are designed to conceive. We cannot, through such means, know what, if anything lies outside the universe, how it works, or if the same rules of logic, math, and science apply at all. You are assuming that they do, but you have no evidence to support that and no means to procure such evidence.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.